similar to: IRBuilder constraints

Dear Developers, I would like get detailed info if verification of the intermediate representation fails. Currently I am using IRBuilder to create a module, and I encountered an error, which I cannot trace back to the IRBuilder related call, which caused the error: "Instruction does not dominate all uses! %14 = load i32, i32* @r6 <https://github.com/r6> %11 = trunc i32 %14 to i8 LLVM

Generally, a good strategy is to look at what Clang generates for similar code and mimic that in your IR generator. -- adrian

Hi list, I found relevant documentation regarding DebugInfo creation in the LLVM IR bytecode. It can be done for compileunits, functions, and other constructs, with the help of DIBuilder class. However I can't save debug information related to individual llvm::Instructions. I tried DebugLoc, DILocation setting directly with setMetadata(). I tried other ways, for e.g.:

Hi All, I'm having some troubles with using call files. I'm trying to establish the following: - want to use call files to connect two (outside) extensions - want to use the outbound routes set in FreePBX - want to set the outgoing callerid for both calls - want to set a custom CDR field in MySQL ( field name 'azonosito' ) Asterisk is version 1.8.2.3 with freepbx 2.8.1. What

Hi, the functionality of LLVMFoldingBuilder has been folded into LLVMBuilder, which has been renamed to IRBuilder. If you were using LLVMFoldingBuilder then it should be enough to rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to IRBuilder everywhere (and change the #include from LLVMBuilder to IRBuilder). If you were using LLVMBuilder then as well as renaming LLVMBuilder to IRBuilder you may also need to fix up the

In the same breath I'd also like to kindly ask if someone could have a look at the reverse operations, namely trunk from 128 to 64 bit using movdq2q, and 128 to 32 and 64 to 32 using movd. This also seems related to Bug 2585. Thanks again. From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Nicolas Capens Sent: Thursday, 31 July, 2008 16:03 To:

Hello, A friend and I am making a parser generator and in order to streamline the language development process, we were going to make the LLVM IR builder directly accessible using the LLVM Assembly language as a scripting language to generate the code. I had read somewhere on this list that the JIT compiler can execute native code using function pointers. My questions are these: What kind of

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > You propose to write scripts in LLVM IR? To save time? Umm... Indirectly yes. We want people to be able to write the action nodes of a PEG parser generator in the language we/they are developing so it will be self-hosting in less time. Also, we will be writing support routines in C and even C++ so using LLVM IR is the greatest common denominator between all of the

Hello, If this is not the correct list to ask this question on I apologize. I am attempting to generate a llvm.memcpy instruction with an IRBuilder but I cannot find the appropriate way to do this. Thanks in advance, Sean -- Sean (Fritz) McQuillan - http://sean-mcquillan.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, Thanks for the patch. I applied it on trunk. I suspect it's too late for 2.6 though. Dan On Sep 28, 2009, at 1:38 PM, KS Sreeram wrote: > Hi folks, > > The llvm c-api contains LLVMBuildNeg but not LLVMBuildFNeg. I've > attached a simple patch which adds LLVMBuildFNeg. > > I know it's a little late, but it'll be great if this can be added > for

[Please use Reply to All for sending your message to the ml too] Marc Claesen <claesenm at gmail.com> writes: >> Another issue is that I don't see in your code the _values_ you want to >> pass to the called function. Apparently you already have the function >> declaration (Function *f) but you are creating a call to that function, >> and you need the actual

Hey guys, Whys are there like 5 variants of CreateCall in IRBuilder<> with numbers appended to them? The only difference I can see is the number of arguments. Aren't C++ function overloads be suited for this? Félix

On Jun 25, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Félix Cloutier wrote: > Hey guys, > > Whys are there like 5 variants of CreateCall in IRBuilder<> with numbers appended to them? The only difference I can see is the number of arguments. Aren't C++ function overloads be suited for this? An overload could work, but this sort of API makes it more obvious which one you're trying to call and

Hi, Is there a way to generate a no-op with IRBuilder? I can't see any API for it, or any instruction in the intermediate representation. When I am compiling an empty statement I want to insert a no-op. How do people normally handle this? Thanks, Chris.

I guess currently we do not have these arithmetic with overflow variants in IRBuilder . So CreateCall is the only way to do it. Is it a good idea to add them into the IRBuilder? even thought they are in turn implemented with CreateCall only? - sanjiv -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I need to pass some arguments to CreateCall function (as Value *). For example, I need to pass a 64 bit integer (with a value I calculate). How can I convert the 64 bit integer to a value * in order to pass it? Thanks a lot, Tehila. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

In my code assembly system I have the various LH-RH operators, ADD, ADDF, SUB, etc, using CreateAdd, CreateFAdd, etc, however I cant seem to locate the correct function/s for the assignment operator. What's the correct function/s in the IRBuilder for assigning a value? - Paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi folks, The llvm c-api contains LLVMBuildNeg but not LLVMBuildFNeg. I've attached a simple patch which adds LLVMBuildFNeg. I know it's a little late, but it'll be great if this can be added for the 2.6 release. I'm asking because I'd like to add support for FNeg in llvm-py too, and it'll be hard to do that if llvm 2.6 doesn't have it. Regards KS Sreeram

Hi Stefanus, I'm not if using MMX instructions when doing operations on 64-bit vectors is so terrible? With x86-64 you have double the registers, but it comes at the cost of longer instruction encodings. So there's probably no benefit using SSE. Or am I missing something? Cheers, Nicolas -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at

Hi Alexandre, Sorry I missed this -- I was on vacation when you sent this. SCEVExpander already has an IRBuilder in it but AFAICT it isn't exposed as a public interface. I'd be fine if you wanted to expose a public `GetIRBuilder()` accessor that let a SCEVExpander client use the same IRBuilder as SCEVExpander. -- Sanjoy On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Alexandre Isoard via llvm-dev